Speaker McCarthy
-
wrote on 7 Jan 2023, 14:37 last edited by
Other than the seat vacating thing, which I do not understand either way, the other demands for concessions seem decent and principled. Hope it works out.
-
wrote on 7 Jan 2023, 14:45 last edited by
Somewhere I read that the concession to go from five votes to one vote to file a motion to vacate is probably of no significant consequence. If Gaetz (R-Beavis) wanted to file a motion, I doubt he would have trouble finding four other like-minded individuals to reach that threshold.
In fact, now that I think about it, the reality of allowing ONE person to do it may serve to isolate him/her/zer more than a coalition of five.
-
wrote on 7 Jan 2023, 14:58 last edited by
-
wrote on 7 Jan 2023, 15:20 last edited by
The Republican also said he would reopen the U.S. Capitol Building, which remained behind additional security measures and was mostly inaccessible to the public following the riots on Jan. 6, 2021.
"My friends – this chamber is now fully open for all Americans," he said, which was met with thunderous applause from Republicans. Democrats in the chamber remained silent.
A humble servant of the people
-
The Republican also said he would reopen the U.S. Capitol Building, which remained behind additional security measures and was mostly inaccessible to the public following the riots on Jan. 6, 2021.
"My friends – this chamber is now fully open for all Americans," he said, which was met with thunderous applause from Republicans. Democrats in the chamber remained silent.
A humble servant of the people
wrote on 7 Jan 2023, 15:32 last edited by@Copper said in Speaker McCarthy:
The Republican also said he would reopen the U.S. Capitol Building, which remained behind additional security measures and was mostly inaccessible to the public following the riots on Jan. 6, 2021.
"My friends – this chamber is now fully open for all Americans," he said, which was met with thunderous applause from Republicans. Democrats in the chamber remained silent.
A humble servant of the people
Now in all their stump speeches, Democratic senators can say that they risk their very lives every time they go to the office. I think they'll like saying that. Win/win.
-
@Copper said in Speaker McCarthy:
The Republican also said he would reopen the U.S. Capitol Building, which remained behind additional security measures and was mostly inaccessible to the public following the riots on Jan. 6, 2021.
"My friends – this chamber is now fully open for all Americans," he said, which was met with thunderous applause from Republicans. Democrats in the chamber remained silent.
A humble servant of the people
Now in all their stump speeches, Democratic senators can say that they risk their very lives every time they go to the office. I think they'll like saying that. Win/win.
wrote on 7 Jan 2023, 15:39 last edited by@Horace said in Speaker McCarthy:
risk their very lives
If they remove the fire extinguishers it should be safe.
-
@Horace said in Speaker McCarthy:
risk their very lives
If they remove the fire extinguishers it should be safe.
wrote on 7 Jan 2023, 15:40 last edited by@Copper said in Speaker McCarthy:
@Horace said in Speaker McCarthy:
risk their very lives
If they remove the fire extinguishers it should be safe.
The ultimate irony of Trumpism. Forcing us to remove safety devices, to ensure safety.
-
BTW, McCarthy said one of the first bills will be to do away with all the new IRS agents. Next will be an energy bill.
And then, God help him, will be tackling the debt.
wrote on 8 Jan 2023, 01:21 last edited by@Jolly said in Speaker McCarthy:
BTW, McCarthy said one of the first bills will be to do away with all the new IRS agents. Next will be an energy bill.
And then, God help him, will be tackling the debt.
The first two will be performative. Seems like what they’ll be able to do this term is, (1) investigate everything, and (2) force a default, or more likely, finally convince Treasury to mint trillion dollar coins.
-
wrote on 8 Jan 2023, 04:35 last edited by
Sounds a bit like what I have read about some Isreal governments.
In order to get to a majority, they have to pick sides with one extreme side or the other. So, a very small minority had more power than they should have.
-
"Term limits?"
Nice idea which I support. But it requires passing constitutional muster. Ain't gonna happen other than a performance vote and they can say "We tried!"
wrote on 8 Jan 2023, 05:25 last edited by@George-K said in Speaker McCarthy:
"Term limits?"
Nice idea which I support. But it requires passing constitutional muster. Ain't gonna happen other than a performance vote and they can say "We tried!"
Why wouldn’t it pass Constitutional Muster? What separates it from Presidential Term Limits, Constitutionally speaking?
-
@George-K said in Speaker McCarthy:
"Term limits?"
Nice idea which I support. But it requires passing constitutional muster. Ain't gonna happen other than a performance vote and they can say "We tried!"
Why wouldn’t it pass Constitutional Muster? What separates it from Presidential Term Limits, Constitutionally speaking?
wrote on 8 Jan 2023, 10:14 last edited by jon-nyc 1 Aug 2023, 10:15@LuFins-Dad The latter was done through constitutional amendment.
Generally the thought has always been that qualifications for office are set in the constitution and can’t be changed by legislation- eg states can’t say “you can’t get on presidential ballot if…” (and they’ve tried)
Of course the house could pass a proposed Amendment - with a 2/3 vote of both houses.
-
@George-K said in Speaker McCarthy:
"Term limits?"
Nice idea which I support. But it requires passing constitutional muster. Ain't gonna happen other than a performance vote and they can say "We tried!"
Why wouldn’t it pass Constitutional Muster? What separates it from Presidential Term Limits, Constitutionally speaking?
wrote on 8 Jan 2023, 12:17 last edited by@LuFins-Dad said in Speaker McCarthy:
Why wouldn’t it pass Constitutional Muster? What separates it from Presidential Term Limits, Constitutionally speaking?
Absolutely nothing.
I phrased that poorly. What I meant to convey is that it's a really high bar to get a Constitutional amendment passed.
-
@LuFins-Dad The latter was done through constitutional amendment.
Generally the thought has always been that qualifications for office are set in the constitution and can’t be changed by legislation- eg states can’t say “you can’t get on presidential ballot if…” (and they’ve tried)
Of course the house could pass a proposed Amendment - with a 2/3 vote of both houses.
wrote on 8 Jan 2023, 14:37 last edited by@jon-nyc said in Speaker McCarthy:
@LuFins-Dad The latter was done through constitutional amendment.
Generally the thought has always been that qualifications for office are set in the constitution and can’t be changed by legislation- eg states can’t say “you can’t get on presidential ballot if…” (and they’ve tried)
Of course the house could pass a proposed Amendment - with a 2/3 vote of both houses.
Would be interesting if the GOP house brought that one to the floor.
-
wrote on 8 Jan 2023, 14:42 last edited by
BTW, I'd like to see two terms for Senators, six terms for Congressmen, with the twelve year limit to run concurrently. After six years, you can run for Congress again, same rules apply. However, during that six year period, you may not lobby the government.
-
wrote on 8 Jan 2023, 14:45 last edited by
And...I'd like to see a modified version of the Fairness Doctrine brought back, which would compel candidates to give x number of speeches, townhalls and debates on the airwaves.
-
wrote on 8 Jan 2023, 15:48 last edited by
6 years is a long time to be a lame duck
-
G George K referenced this topic on 5 Oct 2023, 11:21